CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al v. Mark Field, et alRESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Extension of TimeD. Md.June 17, 2008 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GREENBELT DIVISION COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION and COSTAR GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MARK FIELD D/B/A ALLIANCE VALUATION GROUP, et al. Defendants. Civil Action No. 8:08-CV-663-AW PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO LAWSON VALUATION GROUP INC.’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiffs CoStar Realty Information and CoStar Group, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, submits this Opposition to Lawson Valuation Group’s (“Lawson”) Motion for Enlargement of Time. Plaintiffs do not oppose Lawson’s Motion out of a sense of gamesmanship or without respect for the genuine professional courtesies extended between counsel in federal litigation. However, Plaintiffs cannot consent to Lawson’s Motion. First, Lawson has already sought and received from Plaintiffs consent to a substantial enlargement of time to reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lawson’s Motion to Dismiss. That enlargement was preceded by Plaintiffs’ agreement to an enlargement of time for Lawson to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the first instance. Accordingly, the briefing and resolution of Lawson’s Motion to Dismiss - which, as Plaintiffs set out in their Opposition, is frivolous on a number of issues - would be further CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al v. Mark Field, et al Doc. 43 Dockets.Justia.com 2 delayed by the requested enlargement. Second, as the Court is aware, reply papers such as the one Lawson proposes to file are voluntary in nature, and Lawson’s Motion would otherwise stand fully briefed at this junction. There is no reason for Lawson to need nearly a month at this juncture to file a non-mandatory reply brief. Third, while counsel for Lawson has stated that counsel has had insufficient time to consult with their client, communications between the parties that must have involved Mr. Lawson have taken place during the last few weeks, indicating that counsel has had the opportunity to discuss Plaintiffs’ Opposition, but has chosen not to do so. Lawson and counsel should not be able to seek relief from a deadline when they have not made diligent efforts in meeting that deadline. Fourth, while Plaintiffs concede that a foot injury can be painful, the injury to one attorney of the three attorneys on the papers for Lawson should not be an obstacle to the orderly litigation of this case. Lawson and Lawson’s counsel have already been afforded several courtesies by Plaintiffs, and may yet again ask for and receive such courtesies by Plaintiffs when warranted. However, the serial enlargements requested by Lawson - first in responding to the Complaint, and now two enlargements of the time to file reply papers - cross the line between favors between counsel and an effort by Lawson to take advantage of Plaintiff’s courtesy to avoid the responsibility of litigating this case in an orderly fashion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court deny Lawson’s Motion for an Enlargement. Dated: June 17, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ______/s/__________________________ Shari Ross Lahlou, Bar. No. 16570 William J. Sauers, Bar No. 17355 Sanya Sarich (admitted pro hac vice) Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 Email: slahlou@crowell.com wsauers@crowell.com ssarich@crowell.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CoStar Realty Information, Inc. and CoStar Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 was made, and that a true copy of the above document was served upon the attorneys of record for the following parties by electronically filing the document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which caused a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to be sent to the following on June 17, 2008: Simeon Brier Gary A. Woodfield Edwards Angell Palmer Dodge LLP 350 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 sbrier@eapdlaw.com gwoodfield@eapdlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Lawson Valuation Group R. Wayne Pierce The Pierce Law Firm, LLC 133 Defense Highway Suite 106 Annapolis, MD 21401-7015 wpierce@adventurelaw.com Attorney for Defendants Mark Field d/b/a Alliance Valuation Group and Pathfinder Mortgage Company Mary-Olga Lovett Pamela Ferguson Greenberg Traurig 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 1800 Houston, TX 7700 lovettm@gtlaw.com -2- fergusonp@gtlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Russ A. Gressett /s/ Sanya Sarich (admitted pro hac vice) CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004-2595 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 Email: ssarich@crowell.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CoStar Realty Information, Inc. and CoStar Group, Inc.
